Re: Generics vs. Message passing: object namespaces

On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 09:15 +0000, Tom Locke wrote:

> Dave Roberts:
> > When I first encountered CLOS, coming from
> > a standard C++ -> Java background, it seemed downright strange. ...  
> > Having worked with CLOS more now, I really appreciate the CLOS model.
> 
> The points you've raised are not in question - the generic function  
> approach undoubtedly yields a lot of expressive power. I'm just  
> asking if the price is a loss of nice method names, or is there a  
> best of both worlds solution?

Is there a price in the loss of nice method names? No, I don't think so.
Whether or not a function is bound tightly to a given object definition,
one can still have the same set of names. A generic function and an
object definition can still be developed in concert, can still live in
the same file. As Pascal has said, they can be disambiguated from each
other with a package name.

In short, I have not found any issues with method naming becoming more
verbose in the case of CLOS. IMO, it really is the best of both worlds
because in the degenerate case it's easy to program with CLOS in a style
that is very similar to a "standard" object model with tightly bound
methods and classes and single dispatch. But CLOS just gives you so much
more if you choose to use it.

-- Dave